IRS' Lois Lerner gave confidential Tea Party tax info to FEC, violating law

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Cute, but there's a difference between not knowing what the NSA is up to, which a President should know, and not knowing the goings-on of a mid level IRS employee which really no President should be expected to know.

Unless of course it came from his own political operatives. But, we wouldn't know that without a special prosecutor, which I don't think at this moment the repubs have the fortitude to demand, nor will the progressives in office from the congress, to the senate, all the way up to the WH offer, largely because they know full well that they are at best skirting the line of legality, and most likely would wind up in impeachment.

From Fast and Furious, to Benghazi, to NSA, to Journalist spying, to the IRS, to the ACA. This administration is dancing from scandal to scandal all to be ignored by progressives. I'm telling you what, this would never have gotten this far if the party roles were reversed.

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Cute, but there's a difference between not knowing what the NSA is up to, which a President should know, and not knowing the goings-on of a mid level IRS employee which really no President should be expected to know.

What a rather naive point of view to take considering all the other evidence at hand. Consider all the IRS meetings at the white house, consider the concentrated effort, consider that everytime something goes wrong, Obama we're told "was in the dark". If you want to believe Lerner acted wholly on her own, and it's just another "how could he have" that's on you. Am I suggesting Obama called her up and directed her to this particular act? No of course not, no one is. But if you think Obama didn't know the general effort and had no say in it... you're intellectually dishonest.

Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.

Apparently so is seeing. Otherwise you would have seen the portion of his post that you quoted where he bolded the portion of Erod's post that he was asking for evidence about:

He wasn't asking for evidence regarding Lerner doing it. He was asking for evidence that it was known about and orchaestrated by Obama or Axelrod.

It's not a smart debate tactic to suggest someone is having an issue reading a source when it's being done in response to a post YOU clearly didn't read.

I'd say something, but you're a moderator and a retort of any kind would be inappropriate so I'll just bow and grovel at your superior ability here to show up late in the thread and berate me for my inability to have grasped the full concept that he was trying to convey. It had to of been my fail, not an unclear to me at the moment comment on what evidence he wanted. Further more, as the conversation went along I clarified my position, please read the post above your for more insight into the conversation.

Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.

What a rather naive point of view to take considering all the other evidence at hand. Consider all the IRS meetings at the white house, consider the concentrated effort, consider that everytime something goes wrong, Obama we're told "was in the dark". If you want to believe Lerner acted wholly on her own, and it's just another "how could he have" that's on you. Am I suggesting Obama called her up and directed her to this particular act? No of course not, no one is. But if you think Obama didn't know the general effort and had no say in it... you're intellectually dishonest.

Hey there Vic,

You are far too kind...I think that Obama did know, and I think it would have gone down something like this....

Campaign strategy meeting. In attendance...
President Obama
Valerie Jarrett
David Axlerod
David Brock

Obama - Ok people, we are getting hammered by the Tea Party, I want them sidelined, suggestions?...

Brock - We will obviously continue to marginalize them in the press, and do everything we can to run cover for what ever you decided Mr. President.

Axlerod - If there was only some way we could tie them up and make them bleed money, until we choke them out.

Jarrett - I have a friend who is now in the IRS, and used to be in the FEC that might be able to help....When she was in the FEC she went after the Christian coalition with success, and that approach might work well here, as long as I can get her to fall on her sword if outed.

Obama - Ok, get in touch with her, and tell her to go with that. With that we officially know nothing agreed?

Group present - agreed, yes sir.

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

What a rather naive point of view to take considering all the other evidence at hand. Consider all the IRS meetings at the white house, consider the concentrated effort, consider that everytime something goes wrong, Obama we're told "was in the dark". If you want to believe Lerner acted wholly on her own, and it's just another "how could he have" that's on you. Am I suggesting Obama called her up and directed her to this particular act? No of course not, no one is. But if you think Obama didn't know the general effort and had no say in it... you're intellectually dishonest.

That's not evidence thats conspiracy.

Look I'm critical about Obama "not knowing" about what kind of spy operations the NSA was up to, thats a good and fair criticism to level at this President, at any President really. But this kind of attitude that the President is responsible for the actions of every person who works for the executive is silly.

Look I'm critical about Obama "not knowing" about what kind of spy operations the NSA was up to, thats a good and fair criticism to level at this President, at any President really. But this kind of attitude that the President is responsible for the actions of every person who works for the executive is silly.

Lois Lerner wasn't some second hand employee in a small office. While Obama may have not known what she was doing per say, to think he had little or no information on what was going on is incomprehensible to me.

Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.

So the 'buck' doesn't stop at the desk of the President eh? My how our attitudes have changed in time.

Don't be silly. The President is not responsible for the actions of everyone who works for or in the executive department.

For example my commander, who being part of the military has Obama as his Commander in Chief, recently stole some TVs from the Army and was relieved of command. Do you blame Obama for this? Why not he's the man in charge is he not? Why is he not insuring that a Company Commander is following his own command supply discipline program?

Clearly its not his personal responsibility to behave correctly, nor is it his battalion commander's responsibility, nor is it his brigade commander's, nor is it his division's commander, nor is it his corps' commander, nor is it his component commander, nor is is the responsibility of the Chief of the Army, the Joint Chief, the Secretary of Defense, no CLEARLY its the President's.

That's why there is a chain of command, that's why the different departments have secretaries and multiple levels of organizations.

People love to take Truman's "The buck stops here" desk ordainment and blow it massively out of proportion and pretend it means that one man is responsible for the personal actions of millions of people.

Don't be silly. The President is not responsible for the actions of everyone who works for or in the executive department.

For example my commander, who being part of the military has Obama as his Commander in Chief, recently stole some TVs from the Army and was relieved of command. Do you blame Obama for this? Why not he's the man in charge is he not? Why is he not insuring that a Company Commander is following his own command supply discipline program?

Clearly its not his personal responsibility to behave correctly, nor is it his battalion commander's responsibility, nor is it his brigade commander's, nor is it his division's commander, nor is it his corps' commander, nor is it his component commander, nor is is the responsibility of the Chief of the Army, the Joint Chief, the Secretary of Defense, no CLEARLY its the President's.

That's why there is a chain of command, that's why the different departments have secretaries and multiple levels of organizations.

People love to take Truman's "The buck stops here" desk ordainment and blow it massively out of proportion and pretend it means that one man is responsible for the personal actions of millions of people.

Again, don't be silly.

Don't you be silly...Of course there is a chain of command. However, when this malfeasance becomes news, and the Commander in Chief fails to ensure that the person responsible is accountable, then yes he is responsible.

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville